The world health organization reveals global life expectancy at birth is 72 years, ranging from 61.2 years in the WHO African Region to 77.5 years in the WHO European Region, giving a ratio of 1.3 between the two regions. These inequalities are prevalent throughout the globe, as shown in the large difference in statistics between the average length of life in third-world countries and in many Western countries today. In England alone, people in richer areas have approximately 19 more years of good health than those in the poorest areas. While the average life expectant has overall increased there are ‘stubborn inequalities’ between different parts of the country says public health England. Those in the most deprived areas have higher death rates for heart disease, chronic respiratory diseases, and cancer, partly because of smoking and obesity problems. Children are twice as likely to be born with low birth weight and more than three times as likely to suffer tooth decay. However, studies have estimated that only 20-30% of one’s lifespan is related to genetics the rest is due to individual factors such as access to health care, hygiene, diet and nutrition, exercise, and lifestyle. Based on this is it fair to claim that money can buy good health, or can one be healthy on a budget?
'Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.' World Health Organisation, 1948. In 1986, the WHO further clarified that health is: 'A resource for everyday life, not the objective of living. Health is a positive concept emphasizing social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities.' meaning that health is a resource to support an individual's function in wider societyMental, and physical health is the two most commonly discussed types of health. A healthful diet, exercise, and screening for diseases can all enhance a person's health, say health experts. In 2015, the population of the United States (U.S.) spent an estimated $3.2 trillion on healthcare costs. The source goes on to quote the WHO, ‘The higher a person's socioeconomic status (SES), the more likely they are to enjoy good health, a good education, a well-paid job, afford good healthcare when their health is threatened. People with lower socioeconomic status are more likely to experience stresses related to daily living, such as financial difficulties, marital disruption, and unemployment, as well as social factors, such as marginalization and discrimination. All these add to the risk of poor health.’ This shows that the world health organization recognizes that there is an affiliation between one’s wealth and their health.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The correlation between one’s health and their wealth is further shown via an experiment conducted by the School of Public Health, University of Minnesota. Food pricing is an essential component of the eating environment. The experiment examined lower prices and point-of-purchase promotion on sales of lower-fat vending machine snacks in 12 work sites and 12 secondary schools. Price reductions of 10%, 25%, and 50% on lower-fat snacks resulted in an increase in sales of 9%, 39%, and 93%. The second study examined the impact of a 50% price reduction on fresh fruit and baby carrots in two secondary school cafeterias. Compared with usual price conditions, price reductions resulted in a four-fold increase in fresh fruit sales and a two-fold increase in baby carrot sales. Both studies demonstrate that price reductions are an effective strategy to increase the purchase of more healthful foods in community-based settings such as work sites and schools. The experiment conducted makes the data dependable as the results are clear in showing healthier foods being more popular when more affordable, also the experiment was conducted by a trustworthy source (University of Minnesota) adding to its integrity. However, it could be argued that this small-scaled experiment isn’t enough to prove that cheaper healthy foods can help close the health gap between the rich and the poor, the reliability of the source is contentious because of this.
Medicines are chemicals or compounds used to cure, halt, or prevent disease; ease symptoms; or help in the diagnosis of illnesses. Advances in medicine have enabled doctors to cure many diseases and save lives.The cost of health care is rising faster than wages, increasing a dangerous gap between the care consumers need and the care they can afford.Those lucky enough to live in a country with inclusive state-funded healthcare, such as the UK, probably have no idea how much medicines really cost. Some drugs that have been around for ages are very cheap – aspirin, for instance, costs pence, it’s been made by numerous companies competing to undercut each other’s price for decades. But new medicines can cost hundreds of pounds a packet and sometimes thousands. The new breast cancer drug Kadcyla weighed in at a starting price of £90,000 per patient per year in the UK, suggesting medication prices is not only a problem for poorer countries. A case study found in a Telegraph newspaper shows a personal account of Julie Strelley-Jones, who says, ‘The drug is not only keeping me alive- it is allowing me to enjoy bringing up my children’ so when she was told that the NHS could no longer afford her treatment she naturally was “disappointed and angry”. She went on to exclaim “I don’t want to give up. I know these drugs are expensive but why put all this money into researching them if they can’t be accessed?” The strength of this article lies in it being a firsthand account showing recent direct experience, showing evidence of the effects that overpriced medication can have on one's health, however, the evidence is mainly anecdotal and the article doesn’t have a balanced view (ie the real costs of pharmaceutical industries to produce the treatment). Dr. Manica Balasegaram explores this issue in an article published for Al Jazeera. The doctor states his concerns as ‘if a new drug is developed and nobody can afford it, where is the benefit from it’ as well as providing solutions for the extremely high treatment prices ‘We need to find new ways of paying for research that does not force a choice between developing a drug and making it widely available…This idea is nothing extraordinary; there are already alternative ideas out there - models such as prize funds - that reward new discoveries through substantial financial payouts, paid on the condition that the drug is immediately open to price-lowering market competition. Being in the field for 15 years as a doctor with Medecins Sans Frontieres shows the writer is a credible source, as he is experienced and knowledgeable in the field. The economic argument is assessed however some may say that claims have been exaggerated in order to prove the pharmaceutical industry is desperate to make money. The issue is further explored by World Health Organisation’s former director-general, Margaret Chan. Who, as a final act called for ‘greater equity in the delivery of health care for rich and poor alike’. Clearly showing there is a divide in healthcare between the two counterparts. The article goes on to explain how health inequalities are often aggravated by the high price of medical products but conversely, notes that WHO initiatives have successfully pushed down the prices of vaccines and other medical items. Chan says positive actions by WHO succeeded in ending a yellow fever epidemic in Angola and the Democratic Republic of Congo. She also says measles immunizations over the past 15 years have saved the lives of 20 million children and progress continues to be made in controlling HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria. “The achievement that brought the most joyful headlines, was when WHO published final trial results demonstrating that the new Ebola vaccine confers nearly 100 percent protection… We have by no means defeated this re-emerging disease, but when the next outbreak inevitably occurs, responders will not be empty-handed,” Chan said. This controversially implies personal wealth has little to do with living a healthy lifestyle as the World Health Organisation is actively eradicating disease, (as stated by Chan) not only for the rich and wealthy but also concerned with ‘international public health’. Although the article contains a clear logical argument with a clear counterargument, critics may claim that the success of the WHO has been inflated by Chan to attain a good reputation, or some may even class this as biased as Margaret Chan is expressing all her own efforts and successes to attain political popularity. However, masses more than just medication is needed for a healthy life to be attained. The internet alone has provided at least half the world’s population with free tips on ‘how to live well for less’. As explored in an article by Harvard Medical School ‘the more people cook at home, the healthier their diet, the fewer calories they consume, and the less likely they are to be obese or develop type 2 diabetes’. Not only is cooking at home better for one’s health it also can be cheaper than going out to eat or eating frozen foods (especially for larger families) which is all highly processed food with very little nutritional value. Benefits include knowing exactly what is going into your food as well as allowing one to control their portion sizes as well as additional benefits such as bringing the family together and easily avoiding allergies and sensitivities. Although the article has been produced by a highly credible and well-known source there is no statistical evidence to compare home-cooked food costs and the average cost of eating out. Evidently, there are many reasons why some people live longer than others. Journalist and broadcaster, Julia Hartley-Brewer explain that although there are many factors that affect our health and lifestyles ‘genes, our jobs, our income, our housing, where we live, both our own and our parents’ education… the list goes on. There are, however, two key issues that matter more than anything else: being obese and being a smoker.’ The journalist believes that the problems go far deeper than the pound in one’s pocket as after all cigarettes and fast food are actually very expensive habits. She believes that the truth is that, rich people take better care of their health than poor people do because they have better, happier lives and so want to live for as long as possible. The article shows how good health can be attained without money however it only takes into account middle-class/working-class people from the UK, also this is one person’s account and hence is strongly opinionated. In conclusion, it is obvious that personal wealth does affect one attaining a healthy lifestyle and, if we want the poorest people around the world to live as long as the wealthiest, then we need to stop people from making unhealthy choices and cutting years from their lives. This can be done by increasing taxes on harmful substances such as cigarettes and foods with high amounts of artificial sugars. Leaving people free to eat whatever they want might seem like the easy option, but it is the very poorest who will pay the ultimate price. Also reducing prices on healthful foods is a public health strategy that should be implemented through policy initiatives and industry collaborations, making cheap foods more accessible.
Stuck on your essay?
